normative argument that democratic accountability requires that democratic legis-
lative processes should formulate policy. However, as a practical matter there are
agencies outside of government that seek social change, that innovate and design
policies in line with their own views, and in so doing aVect the social policy
environment.
In a democratic process, program adoption depends on majority rule. A minority
can achieve some of its objectives by forming alliances, logrolling, or other political
maneuvering, but it may not get all the programs it would like. A strictly democratic
process serves the needs of minorities imperfectly, but pluralistic interests can be met
if minorities can develop their own programs outside of government. Is it feasible for
groups to organize outside of government? If not, the case for government action
would be practical more than normative. Government has strong advantages as a
provider of social programs, given its power of compulsion and especially taxation.
Many public programs can be considered public goods or else services provided
publicly because of positive externalities. A market would underproduce these
services, and one response is public provision. The standard argument is that in
the presence of positive externalities, a free-rider problem is likely, and individuals
will not contribute to the service voluntarily. It would take the compulsion powers of
government to make sure that the service is provided. This would suggest that
government is needed as the provider. Of course, the government decision to provide
the service and the level of support depend on a democratic decision.
In fact, however, the free-rider problem is not insurmountable. There is a long
tradition of non-proWt organizations successfully mobilizing resources to pursue a
mission not funded by government. Religious and other aYnity groups and cultural
organizations may not win majority support and would not work in the market, but are
able to organize as non-proWts. There have long been charities that provided hospitals
or orphanages without direct support from government. Many succeeded as non-
proWts in spite of potential free-rider problems. Although government has a clear
advantage in organizing and funding social programs, experience suggests that it is
not a necessity. Determined minorities can organize to get services they want. One
factor strengthening the determination of organizations to develop programs has been
the attempt by governments in some countries to cut back on the services they provide.
In a time of government cutbacks, the minorities that succeed tend to be those that
believe in a service even though it does not get a legislative majority. Normatively, it is
not clear why the government should have a monopoly in deciding on social services.
Practically, a government monopoly is not necessary as long as the free-rider problem is
not important. Governments also have weaknesses as providers (Ostrom and Walker
1997 , 36 ). However, for private organizers to succeed, they need good management
skills. The design of overall social policy, public and private, depends on the behavior of
the thousands of private organizations that initiate and provide their own services.
For the traditional charity, a key skill for survival is fundraising. This in turn
depends on strategic management skills including the ability to deWne a mission that
would appeal to donors. It also depends on the marketing skills to sell the concept to
those who might contribute. The growth of government programs opened new
organizational analysis 487